Trump's tax proposal: raise taxes on the poor, give to the rich

[Final-Fan]

Superman4 said:

Final-Fan said:

1.  I don't mean to discourage you from participating in discussion, and I hope to see you get back into it after you find out more on the topic, should you choose to do so. 

2.  True, it's subjective, but I think that could be compensated for by putting the tax threshold really high, to allow room for error, so to speak.  And how is an estate tax that only collects from millionaires really different in concept from, say, the top level of a progressive income tax that only collects its highest percentage from million-makers?  Finally, regarding "collect while you are alive" versus "wait till you are dead, then collect", I really don't see the problem there. 

3.  True, I am not completely on board with his reasons, but my post directly replied to what you gave as one of your two main arguments against him, and the one you spent by far the most time on. 

Since you brought it up, let's go back to "estate tax repeal/welfare lets the rich/poor be lazy" for a moment.  I do not personally think a position based mainly on "take away all their money to make them stop being lazy" is sound, rather things like "After a person is already inheriting more than enough to live on comfortably for the rest of his life, why not tax some of additional amounts rather than tax the working poor who it would hurt a lot more?" and "Aside from humanitarian reasons, the economy benefits from propping up the destitute to be able to participate on a minimal level rather than just starving." 

4.  OK, but I had thought this 2.5 was a pretty basic level conceptual question.  Ordinarily I would completely understand if you didn't feel you were knowledgeable enough to be comfortable taking a position on it, but you clearly felt you were qualified to have a position on repealing the estate tax, so I just thought I'd ask you what you thought the entire system for collecting taxes ought to be centered around at its heart.  If you say, "I don't know", or "I thought I knew but now I am not sure what to think so I don't want to give my previous answer", that's a fair answer. 

Assuming that SOME taxes must be collected, do you think that the taxes should be designed to inflict the least palpable harm, even if it means an unfair tax that takes a lot more from people from whom a lot more can be taken without crippling them?  Or should the taxes be spread more equally across the population, even if it means taking money from people who will, as a result, starve, be unable to afford medical care, lose their jobs, lose their small businesses, etc.?  Or do you favor a third option (other than "do less harm to people" and "tax more equally")?  (from above, modified)

The only way to be fair in collecting taxes is to implement a flat tax. Taxing based on income is discriminatory. A flat 11-13, even 20% tax for everyone with no tax deductions would allow us to provide full medical coverage and probably college education for everyone on top of fund the government. The rich would pay more since 20% of a million is more than 20% of 60K. The low and middle class would still benefit from no healthcare costs or tuition.  I will never be for taxing money already taxed just because you die and honestly cant think of how anyone else would be either. It is a way for the goverment to take wealth away from successfull people and hurt the future generations of that family. Its essentially a spite tax.

It depends on what you mean by fair, but sure, for a certain type of "fair" a flat tax is the best way.  I'm against it because it does more harm to people than a progressive tax, that falls less heavily on people who must necessarily spend a bigger proportion of their income on basic survival.  (Food etc.)  In general, my ideal is in trying to spread the pain fairly rather than trying for mathematical equality.  But I can appreciate that people have different viewpoints on this question. 

Anyway, are you also against sales taxes on the grounds that they also take money from you that you are already paying income taxes on?  Property taxes too?  We should go down to exactly one type of tax to make sure we don't overlap the payments—that is your position? 

P.S.  I'm skeptical of 20% being as revenue positive as you suggest, let alone 11-13% being revenue neutral.  But that's really off topic so I would prefer not to get into that before our current discussion is exhausted.  However, I will add that I'm completely in favor of simplifying the tax code.  But simplification is to be found in eliminatng deductions, credits, etc. rather than the basic structure, whether it's flat or progressive.